The Audit, the board, the by-laws

FRANK.. regarding the definition of choose..

from the second note from BOD to membership"
Why has an audit (or outside financial review) not been done since 2002?

The SSA hired its first CFAO during 2002. In retrospect, this may have led to a false sense of security on the part of the Board. Over the ensuing years, the Board decided not to spend funds on audits, instead allocating money on other tasks felt necessary to grow the Society. In retrospect, this was obviously "penny wise, and pound foolish." A full audit by an outside party is planned.

THE BOARD DECIDED... repeat DECIDED...

All of this crap about the board NOT KNOWING is just so much crap. THEY DECIDED not to have an audit and have so stated publically.

So perhaps Charlie as a board member, better find out who on the board DECIDED. I would assume ( AND I UNDERSTAND THE DANGER OF ASSUMING ANYTHING) that the audit waS A LINE ITEM ON THE ANNUAL BUDGET WHICH WAS PREPARED BY CFO AND ED THEN PRESENTED TO BOARD. So acceptance of the budget was the SECOND DECIDED!!!



"It is the responsibility of all Board members to review monthly and yearly financial statements."

So what is it about this statement by the chairman that is difficult to understand??? RESPONSIBILITY and BOD are used in the same sentence.. If the board was unaware they were negligent. Are we to understand that all 26 bod members failed to take care of their responsibilities??. MY CONCLUSION is that the ex com ran the board and that the ed ran the excom..



What this all really means is that the current structure of the board does not work.. it is too big. it is controlled by the ex com.



Finally, i read the bylaws of the foundation and find that its membership is composed of the ssa BOARD,, a couple of the directors are mandated as being from the ssa board. What this means is that iff the ssa reduces the board to a manageable size, the whole foundation structure will also need to be revamped.



As far as the ed not knowing that the actual taxes withheld had not been forwarded.. that is a real hard one to swollow.



futrther, "

Why didn't the Association's Treasurer or Executive Director take necessary steps to ensure that federal and state income tax returns were filed in a timely fashion?

"It is the responsibility of the ED to sign tax returns, and assure they are filed in a timely fashion. In this case, the ED was aware of the failure to file for much of the time he was employed by the SSA (approximately three years). He neither secured their filing, nor notified the Board of Directors (including the Treasurer) of the delinquency until July 31, 2006. The ED has taken full responsibility for his actions in this regard. "



"Additionally, we just learned that the tax return prepared by our accountants for the period January 1, to September 30, 2002 (the "non stub" portion of 2002) was delivered to the CFAO years ago, but he never mailed it to the IRS."

Charlie WHY IS THIS GUY STILL ON THE PAYROLL.. you are on the board.. We need to hear something. You continue to make excuses for the ed.. There is no excuse for not mailing in a return from 2003 that just need signiture.. unless, as i suspect, you KNOW that it is a fraudlent return and you don't want to sign it.. But, put that aside.. KNOWING that returns for payroll taxes are not being filed by the cfo would certainly cause most ceo's (or ed's) to ask a question or two..

The final indignity of this situation is that it developed immediatly after another series of bad internal experiences that were basically covered up and not made part of the general membership discussion. I take it that you are a repeat BOD member.. didn't you learn anything the last time???





5bg





"Charlie Lite" wrote in message oups.com...
Alice
alice wrote:
Frank Reid wrote:
I have made no speculation about what the excom did nor what their
motivation was. Nor have I made any comments as to what the boards
motivation was.

Now Frank, if you claim to know something without any evidence to back
it up, some people might call that speculating.I was not just refering
to you here, but alot of the people who have posted on RAS.You did
claim that the motivation for ignoring the bylaws was stupidity.That
sounds like speculating to me.


I have on the other hand read all the board minutes from 2002 foreward
and there is no mention at all about an audit, much less some sort of
vote or discussion. I have also corresponded with many of the board
members and to the entire current excom.
Each and every one agrees. There was no vote, no discussion, and no
decision of any kind about an audit.

You have to read the post from 5BG on this one.

Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.

This sentence is what is known as begging the question. You apparently
cannot accept that the board did not make a decision on the audit. So
I will say it again. The board did not make a decision of any kind
about the audit and therefore, in no way did "they chose to ignore the
bylaws". If you insist on making that statement the premise of your
comments then you have already declared them guilty of some "big bad
conspiracy". Is that what you really mean to do?

First of all, I can accept the fact that a mistake was made. The fact
that it was made three years in a row is a bit of a stretch.I dont
believe in a conspiracy (Yea, I know, now I am SPECULATING that there
was no conspiracy (grin)), but I would like to know why Dennis Wright
knew his CFO was not abiding by the law and chose not to do anything
about it for 3 years.


As above I have made no comment as to the motivation(s) of anyone. I
have been addressing the volunteer SSA Board members and nowhere have I
even mentioned the paid staff including the ED and the CFAO. So tell
me Alice, do you have trouble sticking to a topic or did you just throw
this in as "smoke"?

Now work with me here Frank, it took alot of people to dig this
hole.Arent you the least bit curiuos why the checks and balances that
were put into place after the last fiasco didnt work here?3 years in a
row?

With all due respect, Alice, I have made no speculation. I have told
you facts that you have decided are speculation. However, since you
want to call my comments speculation please tell us all what you know
that makes what I have said speculation instead of fact.

With comments like "Nothing more nothing less", you are just expressing
your opinion as I have been expressing mine.Isnt that what part of what
this board is for?For some reason you like to call your opinions
facts.Now I realize the people on the board are hard working buddies of
yours, and this might raise strong feelings for you when their
accountability is called into question, but all you have given us is
your OPINION of why they did not see fit to follow the bylaws.


Additionally, what would you call someone who, before this grand
investigation has concluded, has accused the Board of Directors of the
following: "they chose to ignore the bylaws"? And before you answer
make sure you know the definition of the word "chose". It is the past
tense of "choose - to select freely and after consideration, to decide
on esp. by vote". Are you sure you want to accuse the SSA Board of
Directors of this action? Or is it just possible that you have been
speculating just a little on your own?

OK Frank, lets get wrapped up in semantics here.The bylaws were not
followed!!!The people who were elected and trusted to follow them
didnt!!!Where is the speculation in that statement?

Indeed, your "hatch may just blow" if you continue to accuse the Board
without absolute proof of your acccusations.

Regards,

Frank Reid

Are you threatening me?What are you gonna do, fly to Salt Lake and kick
my ass?I always thought this board was for the free exchange of
questions and ideasand opinions, but then there are posters like you,
who post nothing but facts while the rest of us are just
speculating.And then you have to end your post with a physical
threat.Dude, did you get your meds today?

Alice

As Board Member I'd like to point out that none of the communications
from the EXCOM have indicated that the ED was aware of the unpaid
taxes. He was aware of the unfiled yearly tax returns but as I
understand it, he had no idea that the witholding
taxes collected from employees had not been fowarded to the appropriate
state or federal authorities.

Charlie "Lite"

don;
NO we cannot take this discussion elsewhere as there is no viable venue within ssa for this discussion. The ssa is in deep **** and in need of a major reorganization. personal notes to the ex com and the rest of the board go UNANSWERED. the lawyers are now involved and i suspect that everyone has been told to keep quiet. This venue is about as close to a free exchange of ideas re ssa as is possible
I suggest that you highlite topics you do not wish to read and use your delete key.

The inquiry is NOT taking a normal course which is why we need this place.
"Don Johnstone" wrote in message ...
Can I make a small appeal. Those of us outside the
USA have got the picture, the SSA management are incompetent,
so what? We don't need you to tell us over and over
again, it's boring and we believe you. Can we get back
to discussing gliding and let the inevitable enquiry
take it's course.

"Charlie Lite" wrote in message
oups.com...
Alice
alice wrote:
Frank Reid wrote:
I have made no speculation about what the excom did nor what their
motivation was. Nor have I made any comments as to what the boards
motivation was.

Now Frank, if you claim to know something without any evidence to back
it up, some people might call that speculating.I was not just refering
to you here, but alot of the people who have posted on RAS.You did
claim that the motivation for ignoring the bylaws was stupidity.That
sounds like speculating to me.


I have on the other hand read all the board minutes from 2002 foreward
and there is no mention at all about an audit, much less some sort of
vote or discussion. I have also corresponded with many of the board
members and to the entire current excom.
Each and every one agrees. There was no vote, no discussion, and no
decision of any kind about an audit.

You have to read the post from 5BG on this one.

Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.

This sentence is what is known as begging the question. You apparently
cannot accept that the board did not make a decision on the audit. So
I will say it again. The board did not make a decision of any kind
about the audit and therefore, in no way did "they chose to ignore the
bylaws". If you insist on making that statement the premise of your
comments then you have already declared them guilty of some "big bad
conspiracy". Is that what you really mean to do?

First of all, I can accept the fact that a mistake was made. The fact
that it was made three years in a row is a bit of a stretch.I dont
believe in a conspiracy (Yea, I know, now I am SPECULATING that there
was no conspiracy (grin)), but I would like to know why Dennis Wright
knew his CFO was not abiding by the law and chose not to do anything
about it for 3 years.


As above I have made no comment as to the motivation(s) of anyone. I
have been addressing the volunteer SSA Board members and nowhere have I
even mentioned the paid staff including the ED and the CFAO. So tell
me Alice, do you have trouble sticking to a topic or did you just throw
this in as "smoke"?

Now work with me here Frank, it took alot of people to dig this
hole.Arent you the least bit curiuos why the checks and balances that
were put into place after the last fiasco didnt work here?3 years in a
row?

With all due respect, Alice, I have made no speculation. I have told
you facts that you have decided are speculation. However, since you
want to call my comments speculation please tell us all what you know
that makes what I have said speculation instead of fact.

With comments like "Nothing more nothing less", you are just expressing
your opinion as I have been expressing mine.Isnt that what part of what
this board is for?For some reason you like to call your opinions
facts.Now I realize the people on the board are hard working buddies of
yours, and this might raise strong feelings for you when their
accountability is called into question, but all you have given us is
your OPINION of why they did not see fit to follow the bylaws.


Additionally, what would you call someone who, before this grand
investigation has concluded, has accused the Board of Directors of the
following: "they chose to ignore the bylaws"? And before you answer
make sure you know the definition of the word "chose". It is the past
tense of "choose - to select freely and after consideration, to decide
on esp. by vote". Are you sure you want to accuse the SSA Board of
Directors of this action? Or is it just possible that you have been
speculating just a little on your own?

OK Frank, lets get wrapped up in semantics here.The bylaws were not
followed!!!The people who were elected and trusted to follow them
didnt!!!Where is the speculation in that statement?

Indeed, your "hatch may just blow" if you continue to accuse the Board
without absolute proof of your acccusations.

Regards,

Frank Reid

Are you threatening me?What are you gonna do, fly to Salt Lake and kick
my ass?I always thought this board was for the free exchange of
questions and ideasand opinions, but then there are posters like you,
who post nothing but facts while the rest of us are just
speculating.And then you have to end your post with a physical
threat.Dude, did you get your meds today?

Alice

As Board Member I'd like to point out that none of the communications
from the EXCOM have indicated that the ED was aware of the unpaid
taxes. He was aware of the unfiled yearly tax returns but as I
understand it, he had no idea that the witholding
taxes collected from employees had not been fowarded to the appropriate
state or federal authorities.

Charlie "Lite"


Charlie,

How does the professional ED justify being aware of the failure to file, and
not correcting the situation or informing the board? I can't imagine a
reason good enough to save his job, but I'm listening.

At 21:36 25 September 2006, Don Johnstone wrote:
Can I make a small appeal. Those of us outside the
USA have got the picture, the SSA management are incompetent,
so what? We don't need you to tell us over and over
again, it's boring and we believe you. Can we get back
to discussing gliding and let the inevitable enquiry
take it's course.

A.) You must be the evil twin of that other Don Johnstone
who just posted to the parallel thread.
B.) A useful tip...the mouse has a left click button,
it does not have to be used when looking at threads
of no interest.
C.) If overcome by irrestible urge to click on the
aforementioned threads, one is under no obligation
to read them.

If he knew the yearly tax returns weren't filed, wouldn't this raise HUGE
red flags? Wouldn't it be logical, for the ED to ask some further questions
and see what else hadn't been done as required?

Mike Schumann

"Charlie Lite" wrote in message
oups.com...
Alice
alice wrote:
Frank Reid wrote:
I have made no speculation about what the excom did nor what their
motivation was. Nor have I made any comments as to what the boards
motivation was.

Now Frank, if you claim to know something without any evidence to back
it up, some people might call that speculating.I was not just refering
to you here, but alot of the people who have posted on RAS.You did
claim that the motivation for ignoring the bylaws was stupidity.That
sounds like speculating to me.


I have on the other hand read all the board minutes from 2002 foreward
and there is no mention at all about an audit, much less some sort of
vote or discussion. I have also corresponded with many of the board
members and to the entire current excom.
Each and every one agrees. There was no vote, no discussion, and no
decision of any kind about an audit.

You have to read the post from 5BG on this one.

Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.

This sentence is what is known as begging the question. You apparently
cannot accept that the board did not make a decision on the audit. So
I will say it again. The board did not make a decision of any kind
about the audit and therefore, in no way did "they chose to ignore the
bylaws". If you insist on making that statement the premise of your
comments then you have already declared them guilty of some "big bad
conspiracy". Is that what you really mean to do?

First of all, I can accept the fact that a mistake was made. The fact
that it was made three years in a row is a bit of a stretch.I dont
believe in a conspiracy (Yea, I know, now I am SPECULATING that there
was no conspiracy (grin)), but I would like to know why Dennis Wright
knew his CFO was not abiding by the law and chose not to do anything
about it for 3 years.


As above I have made no comment as to the motivation(s) of anyone. I
have been addressing the volunteer SSA Board members and nowhere have I
even mentioned the paid staff including the ED and the CFAO. So tell
me Alice, do you have trouble sticking to a topic or did you just throw
this in as "smoke"?

Now work with me here Frank, it took alot of people to dig this
hole.Arent you the least bit curiuos why the checks and balances that
were put into place after the last fiasco didnt work here?3 years in a
row?

With all due respect, Alice, I have made no speculation. I have told
you facts that you have decided are speculation. However, since you
want to call my comments speculation please tell us all what you know
that makes what I have said speculation instead of fact.

With comments like "Nothing more nothing less", you are just expressing
your opinion as I have been expressing mine.Isnt that what part of what
this board is for?For some reason you like to call your opinions
facts.Now I realize the people on the board are hard working buddies of
yours, and this might raise strong feelings for you when their
accountability is called into question, but all you have given us is
your OPINION of why they did not see fit to follow the bylaws.


Additionally, what would you call someone who, before this grand
investigation has concluded, has accused the Board of Directors of the
following: "they chose to ignore the bylaws"? And before you answer
make sure you know the definition of the word "chose". It is the past
tense of "choose - to select freely and after consideration, to decide
on esp. by vote". Are you sure you want to accuse the SSA Board of
Directors of this action? Or is it just possible that you have been
speculating just a little on your own?

OK Frank, lets get wrapped up in semantics here.The bylaws were not
followed!!!The people who were elected and trusted to follow them
didnt!!!Where is the speculation in that statement?

Indeed, your "hatch may just blow" if you continue to accuse the Board
without absolute proof of your acccusations.

Regards,

Frank Reid

Are you threatening me?What are you gonna do, fly to Salt Lake and kick
my ass?I always thought this board was for the free exchange of
questions and ideasand opinions, but then there are posters like you,
who post nothing but facts while the rest of us are just
speculating.And then you have to end your post with a physical
threat.Dude, did you get your meds today?

Alice

As Board Member I'd like to point out that none of the communications
from the EXCOM have indicated that the ED was aware of the unpaid
taxes. He was aware of the unfiled yearly tax returns but as I
understand it, he had no idea that the witholding
taxes collected from employees had not been fowarded to the appropriate
state or federal authorities.

Charlie "Lite"

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
nk.net...
If he knew the yearly tax returns weren't filed, wouldn't this raise HUGE red
flags? Wouldn't it be logical, for the ED to ask some further questions and
see what else hadn't been done as required?

This is a huge question that is central to the situation, and I have been
asking it for over a week now. The only response I hear is a massive silence.
These are basic things that any professional manager of any kind of organization
should do as a matter of course.

Because of this silence, I am quickly losing confidence and patience.
Until we get some real answers, Hobbs can save a bit of money by not bothering
to send me a dues notice.

Vaughn

Vaughn

That is the exact reason why the ED is out!!!!!


Brian
"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
nk.net...
If he knew the yearly tax returns weren't filed, wouldn't this raise HUGE
red flags? Wouldn't it be logical, for the ED to ask some further
questions and see what else hadn't been done as required?

This is a huge question that is central to the situation, and I have
been asking it for over a week now. The only response I hear is a massive
silence. These are basic things that any professional manager of any kind
of organization should do as a matter of course.

Because of this silence, I am quickly losing confidence and patience.
Until we get some real answers, Hobbs can save a bit of money by not
bothering to send me a dues notice.

Vaughn